by Staff Report
The Daily Bell
Obama aide: Debt limit fight could be "catastrophic" ... A fight over the budget loomed on Sunday as a top aide to President Barack Obama warned of catastrophic consequences if Republicans follow through on threats to reject an increase in the nation's borrowing limit. Republicans, who will take control of the House of Representatives this week, are demanding spending cuts to curb the $1.3 trillion budget deficit and several have said they would oppose a higher debt ceiling if Obama does not agree to a range of painful cuts. – LA Times
Dominant Social Theme: We shall overcome. Regulatory democracy shall be expanded.
Free-Market Analysis: In this article, we hope to show that where the US – and Europe, too – are headed has nothing much to do with business-as-usual. This is a dangerous time. The elite is unfathomably powerful yet; its injuries will make it angry. We will explore why the elite simply cannot fathom that its situation has changed radically and why sooner or later the realization that it may have to take a step back will sink in.
The truth-telling of the Internet is forcing changes – and placing the elite on a kind of knife-edge, in which the intended international economic catastrophes must be calibrated to promote continued globalization without overwhelming blowback from the masses. As stated, a difficult time.
The Anglo-American elite is fighting to keep the European Union from disintegrating. And as we can see from the article excerpted above there is a good deal of concern over the US debt situation as well as worry that the obvious US decline will not be properly managed. The elite, which has organized a central banking economy with commercial banks as distribution points, does not wish for a default in either Europe or America.
The global economic downturn has been worse than imagined and aggravated by the communications revolution and globalized network technology. Investments, social systems and the Way the World Works in the 21st century will all be determined by whether the elite can manage to create a version of the New World Order as it evidently and obviously wishes, or whether it cannot.
From an investment standpoint, this is a most important epoch. There are tremendous differences between an elite-run globalist world and one that is less controlled and reverting – unmanaged – toward free-markets. In the globalist world, one inhabits a highly-regulated economy of deteriorating fiat-money driving a plethora of confusing securities "investments." Employment may be scarce and government itself provides the decision-making on a variety of fronts. Opportunities are organized quite literally around elite portfolios with accountants, lawyers and business managers at the top of the hierarchy.
In a free-market economy, we believe the structure would be quite different. Without a diminished legal apparatus of modern economic hierarchies there might be less of a corporate emphasis. People would tend to work together in interlinked, familial partnerships. Legal issues would be worked out without state intrusion. The pace of "change" would be slower and the plethora of consumer gadgets would be significantly diminished.
The core of society eventually would be built around local factories and agricultural, with the large family farm predominating. "Education" – especially graduate degrees – would not be sought after with such vigor; preparing for a craft or trade would be more popular. We base these observations on such small-country environments as Switzerland and Uruguay and on US society pre-Civil War.
We do not anticipate that a free-market society with all its benefits will experience a dramatic resurgence – whether or not the elite succeeds in further expanding the internationalist paradigm. But it is possible that aspects of free-market living and thinking can rise again in the West. The power elite in our view is facing significant challenges as it tries to move toward more global governance. In fact, we speculate that the elite's moves in this regard are setting up some sort of additional dialectic and have speculated it has to do with Julian Assange and an alternative form of global governance that will seem to arise spontaneously, emphasizing the populist will and "transparency." See this article: Transparency Meme Expands.
Just yesterday further elite "squeaks" emerged online in the form of an extraordinary video of a George Soros interview. We are not sure of the provenance, but the interview itself is surprisingly revealing. In it, George Soros suggests bluntly that China's leadership is not yet fully cooperative with the West (despite its intention to bail out Europe) and that if China won't go along with the West's plan for a one-world currency, then two currencies will emerge, worldwide. Nonetheless, Soros emphasizes that the dollar is in decline – a decline that ought to be managed – and that the US is also in decline, terminally, as the engine of the world's economy. China, he suggests will have to take over.
Soros points out that the UK and France used IMF special drawing rights in Istanbul, and blurts out that proves that SDRs can work as a global currency, and that the IMF itself will pay for SDR liquidity via its gold reserves. This is a quite astonishing statement, and one that is in the process of setting the blogosphere ablaze. It tends to confirm suspicions that the powers-that-be intend to use the IMF as a kind of global central bank and eventually to fashion a bancor – anchored or not – out of the SDR program.
Unlike some other Internet publications that insist, strangely, that Soros is not speaking for the power elite, we believe such a strong statement was not made "off the reservation." If Murdoch provides media for the "right" so does Soros for the "left." Soros is enunciating one side of the economic argument; Murdoch's publications and editorials may supply the other. It is the Dialectic at work, a way to frame an argument that gradually moves towards a more globalized currency. We are not sure what to make of his comments about China. They confirm our original thinking that China remains a wary partner in the Anglosphere's drive for a New World Order. See here: China Shows Elite Hand.
The statements generally indicate a further level of discomfort with the global recovery and the evolution of global finance. Why mention SDRs and their use as currency? Is the level of pushback to a global currency such that the elite believes progress in that regard ought to be mentioned? And why explain that the US in terminal decline and that China is going to take over as the world's economic engine whether or the Chinese leaders accept the reality of a one-world currency.
The Soros interview is further evidence that the elite is confronting a troublesome period. It is not only the decline of the United States that needs to be managed – but the decline of Europe, the rise of austerity and the level of cooperation that can be extracted from China. Ordinarily, none of this would be discussed by blogs; but in this day and age the Internet is acting as virtual adjunct to the power elite. Conversations that used to take place once a year at Bilderburg are taking place minute-to-minute on the Web. The power elite in our view misjudged the severity of the downturn of the world's economy and also the truth-telling of the Internet and the degree to which it would be used by every-day people once they started losing their jobs and pensions.
We would go further and suggest that it is the arrogance of the elites generally – especially after the triumphs of the 20th century – that led them to this place. They were surely blindsided by the Internet and even now with their maneuvering exposed they forge ahead as if nothing has happened. There are perhaps many reasons for this behavior but one of them surely is that after so many years of ruling the world behind the scenes they cannot fathom that their power is less than unbrookable or that their plans are less than absolute.
Conclusion: As setbacks mount, so does concern. We would anticipate that if the anxiety grows strong enough certain actions will be taken – a war being the most likely. We hope the reaction is not simply to lash out. Sooner or later, Western elites may have to take a step back from their plans for world dominance – simply because the situation demands it.
The Daily Bell
Dominant Social Theme: We shall overcome. Regulatory democracy shall be expanded.
Free-Market Analysis: In this article, we hope to show that where the US – and Europe, too – are headed has nothing much to do with business-as-usual. This is a dangerous time. The elite is unfathomably powerful yet; its injuries will make it angry. We will explore why the elite simply cannot fathom that its situation has changed radically and why sooner or later the realization that it may have to take a step back will sink in.
The truth-telling of the Internet is forcing changes – and placing the elite on a kind of knife-edge, in which the intended international economic catastrophes must be calibrated to promote continued globalization without overwhelming blowback from the masses. As stated, a difficult time.
The Anglo-American elite is fighting to keep the European Union from disintegrating. And as we can see from the article excerpted above there is a good deal of concern over the US debt situation as well as worry that the obvious US decline will not be properly managed. The elite, which has organized a central banking economy with commercial banks as distribution points, does not wish for a default in either Europe or America.
The global economic downturn has been worse than imagined and aggravated by the communications revolution and globalized network technology. Investments, social systems and the Way the World Works in the 21st century will all be determined by whether the elite can manage to create a version of the New World Order as it evidently and obviously wishes, or whether it cannot.
From an investment standpoint, this is a most important epoch. There are tremendous differences between an elite-run globalist world and one that is less controlled and reverting – unmanaged – toward free-markets. In the globalist world, one inhabits a highly-regulated economy of deteriorating fiat-money driving a plethora of confusing securities "investments." Employment may be scarce and government itself provides the decision-making on a variety of fronts. Opportunities are organized quite literally around elite portfolios with accountants, lawyers and business managers at the top of the hierarchy.
In a free-market economy, we believe the structure would be quite different. Without a diminished legal apparatus of modern economic hierarchies there might be less of a corporate emphasis. People would tend to work together in interlinked, familial partnerships. Legal issues would be worked out without state intrusion. The pace of "change" would be slower and the plethora of consumer gadgets would be significantly diminished.
The core of society eventually would be built around local factories and agricultural, with the large family farm predominating. "Education" – especially graduate degrees – would not be sought after with such vigor; preparing for a craft or trade would be more popular. We base these observations on such small-country environments as Switzerland and Uruguay and on US society pre-Civil War.
We do not anticipate that a free-market society with all its benefits will experience a dramatic resurgence – whether or not the elite succeeds in further expanding the internationalist paradigm. But it is possible that aspects of free-market living and thinking can rise again in the West. The power elite in our view is facing significant challenges as it tries to move toward more global governance. In fact, we speculate that the elite's moves in this regard are setting up some sort of additional dialectic and have speculated it has to do with Julian Assange and an alternative form of global governance that will seem to arise spontaneously, emphasizing the populist will and "transparency." See this article: Transparency Meme Expands.
Just yesterday further elite "squeaks" emerged online in the form of an extraordinary video of a George Soros interview. We are not sure of the provenance, but the interview itself is surprisingly revealing. In it, George Soros suggests bluntly that China's leadership is not yet fully cooperative with the West (despite its intention to bail out Europe) and that if China won't go along with the West's plan for a one-world currency, then two currencies will emerge, worldwide. Nonetheless, Soros emphasizes that the dollar is in decline – a decline that ought to be managed – and that the US is also in decline, terminally, as the engine of the world's economy. China, he suggests will have to take over.
Soros points out that the UK and France used IMF special drawing rights in Istanbul, and blurts out that proves that SDRs can work as a global currency, and that the IMF itself will pay for SDR liquidity via its gold reserves. This is a quite astonishing statement, and one that is in the process of setting the blogosphere ablaze. It tends to confirm suspicions that the powers-that-be intend to use the IMF as a kind of global central bank and eventually to fashion a bancor – anchored or not – out of the SDR program.
Unlike some other Internet publications that insist, strangely, that Soros is not speaking for the power elite, we believe such a strong statement was not made "off the reservation." If Murdoch provides media for the "right" so does Soros for the "left." Soros is enunciating one side of the economic argument; Murdoch's publications and editorials may supply the other. It is the Dialectic at work, a way to frame an argument that gradually moves towards a more globalized currency. We are not sure what to make of his comments about China. They confirm our original thinking that China remains a wary partner in the Anglosphere's drive for a New World Order. See here: China Shows Elite Hand.
The statements generally indicate a further level of discomfort with the global recovery and the evolution of global finance. Why mention SDRs and their use as currency? Is the level of pushback to a global currency such that the elite believes progress in that regard ought to be mentioned? And why explain that the US in terminal decline and that China is going to take over as the world's economic engine whether or the Chinese leaders accept the reality of a one-world currency.
The Soros interview is further evidence that the elite is confronting a troublesome period. It is not only the decline of the United States that needs to be managed – but the decline of Europe, the rise of austerity and the level of cooperation that can be extracted from China. Ordinarily, none of this would be discussed by blogs; but in this day and age the Internet is acting as virtual adjunct to the power elite. Conversations that used to take place once a year at Bilderburg are taking place minute-to-minute on the Web. The power elite in our view misjudged the severity of the downturn of the world's economy and also the truth-telling of the Internet and the degree to which it would be used by every-day people once they started losing their jobs and pensions.
We would go further and suggest that it is the arrogance of the elites generally – especially after the triumphs of the 20th century – that led them to this place. They were surely blindsided by the Internet and even now with their maneuvering exposed they forge ahead as if nothing has happened. There are perhaps many reasons for this behavior but one of them surely is that after so many years of ruling the world behind the scenes they cannot fathom that their power is less than unbrookable or that their plans are less than absolute.
Conclusion: As setbacks mount, so does concern. We would anticipate that if the anxiety grows strong enough certain actions will be taken – a war being the most likely. We hope the reaction is not simply to lash out. Sooner or later, Western elites may have to take a step back from their plans for world dominance – simply because the situation demands it.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I want to hear from you but any comment that advocates violence, illegal activity or that contains advertisements that do not promote activism or awareness, will be deleted.